Wzor A,B

śWIAToWIT • VIII (XLIX)/B • 2009–2010
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
ThE MiLKy WhiTE ChALCEDoNiTE/oPAL DiSTRiBuTioN
iN ThE NEoLiThiC K ELTEMiNAR CuLTuRE of ThE KyZyL -KuMS, uZBEKiSTAN
(PL. 13–16)
A
mong the various lithic raw materials processed
by the Neolithic inhabitants of the Kyzyl-kums, central
Asia, milky white, porcelain-like material deserves special
attention.1 It is petrographically identified as chalcedonite
often turning into opal (MIchNIAK 1998; SZyMcZAK,
KhUDZhANAZARoV, MIchNIAK 2006: 590). This easy to
recognize rock is usually non transparent, although it has
fairly transparent, opalescent varieties (fig. 1). In other cases
it can bear a slightly yellowish, or pinky shade. Rarely,
black or dark navy blue, a millimetre or so thick veins of
intrusions appear in the uniform white rock mass. The cortex, when preserved, often has reddish or pinky yellow
shade, but in general the cortex is naturally removed (washed up), and such surfaces bear traces of natural heavy damage: crushing, tearing off, etc.
The petrographic analysis of three samples of the
raw material under discussion showed an exceptionally uniform structure without any, even single, spikes or microcaverns. on the microscopic pictures of thin sections observed under an optical microscope with polarized light, as
well as on the freshly knapped surfaces observed under
a SEM (fig. 2), a monomineral, siliceous rock with excellently uniform micrograining could be seen. Diagrams of
the microsound spectrographic data present the most pure
silica with very rare, minor trace admixture of calcium (ca)
and magnesium (Mg) components. Also the roentgenographs show in all their range only pure quartz, without
any other polymorphic varieties of siliceous minerals
(MIchNIAK 1998).
A problem of the location of the natural outcrops
of white chalcedonite/opal has not yet been positively
solved. Some premises could indicate that we should look
for these outcrops probably in the most northern or northwestern part of the uplands of the central Kyzyl-kums (the
Bukantau and the neighbouring mountain chains). During
our trip to that region in August 2002 in one of the gorges
of the southern slope of the Bukantau Mountains we
found a single natural, unworked fragment of white chalcedonite/opal pebble. It was most probably washed up and
transported by seasonally flowing water (S ZyMcZAK ,
KhUDZhANAZARoV 2003: 7). This is the only information
which could indicate that the natural sources of the presented lithic raw material are situated somewhere in the
northern central Kyzyl-kums, and that during our trips
there we could be not very far from them.
Many authors emphasize an important, or even
leading role of white raw material in the Neolithic of the
Kyzyl-kums: U.I. Islamov (GULâMoV, ISLAMoV, ASKARoV
1966: 29–30), A.V. Vinogradov (VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV
1975: 212), N.U. holmatov (2004: 20). however, the
intensity of its appearance is quite differentiated, both in
time and space. The main aim of this paper is to show
this differentiation and in that way to add some details to
the picture of life of the Neolithic peoples of this part of
central Asia.
As far as chronology is concerned, the local Neolithic could be divided into three main phases: the early
(Dariasai) phase, dated ca 6200–5400 Bc, the middle
(Tuskan) phase, dated ca 4000–3000 Bc, and the late
(Akčadaria) phase, dated ca 3000–2100 Bc (note that
the middle phase was formerly called the ‘Džanbas phase’
by A.V. Vinogradov (1981: 132), but, as we know now, its
eponymous site should be dated from the Late Neolithic,
so we had to propose a new name). An about 1.5 millennium settlement gap observed in Ayakagytma ‘The Site’, and
probably in Učaŝi 131, is due to rise of the water level of the
sea, which we called the Io Sea. By the times of the Early
holocene it covered a good part of the Kyzyl-kums, up to
a contour line of ca 200 m above msl (KhUDZhANAZARoV,
SZyMcZAK: 2006). The most characteristic typological
marks of the Tuskan phase, among others, are: a presence of
small shouldered points of Kelteminarian type, rhomboid
inserts, and microlithic rectangles, while for the Akčadaria
phase – points with flat, surface retouch on both faces,
and/or large amounts of microperforators. None of these
forms appear in the Dariasai collections.
The nomadic Kelteminarian groups, keeping not
very far from the seashore, for many times were leaving and
1
the Mianowski Fund – Foundation for the Promotion of Science
and Letters (Kasa im. Józefa Mianowskiego – Fundacja Popierania Nauki), the Scientific Union of Students of the University of
Warsaw, the Institute of Archaeology, the University of Warsaw,
and the Institute of Archaeology, the Uzbek Academy of Sciences
in Samarkand.
Research on the Kyzyl-kums’ Stone Age was financed by the
Polish State committee for Scientific Research (Komitet Badań
Naukowych), scientific grants Nos. 1 h01 G 011 12 (1997–1999),
2 h01 h0 36 22 (2002–2004) and N 109 019 31/0991 (2006–
2008), the Foundation for the Polish Science (Fundacja na Rzecz
Nauki Polskiej), Association (Stowarzyszenie) ‘Wspólnota Polska’,
35
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
Table 1. The appearance of white raw material in the Tuskan surface collections gained during the 2004 survey
from the area of the Tuskan Lakes (K. Szymczak).
Tabela 1. Występowanie białego surowca w powierzchniowych kolekcjach znad Jezior Tuskańskich.
No. of site
No. of finds of chalcedonite/opal
Total No. of lithic finds
Point 1
Point 3
Point 7
Point 10
Point 13
Point 14
Point 17
24
9
8
88
61
14
13
25
9
8
131
86
16
20
then coming back again to the same, or nearly the same
place. Such a way of life led to a formation of dense clusters
of sites in certain areas. In the Kyzyl-kums we can differentiate now fourteen such clusters. Their names, starting from
the south-east, then northwards, and around the Io Sea, are
as follows: 1. the Lavlâkan Lakes, 2. Ayakagytma, 3. Učaŝi
(eastern Dariasai), 4. the Tuskan Lakes (Mahandaria),
5. Čorbakti, 6. Ečkiliksai, 7. Bešbulak, 8. Minabulak,
9. Bukantau, 10. Northern Aral, 11. Southern Ustiurt,
12. Uzboi, 14.Akčadaria, 15. the Amudaria’s left bank; only
Džebel, marked as 13, is a single, cave site (the numbers
correspond to marks on figs. 3–5). For Džebel, as well as
for the Northern Aral, Southern Ustiurt, and Uzboi clusters, we do not have reliable data concerning a detailed raw
material description.
Different character has a settlement of the contemporary Džejtun culture from the Kara-kums (BRUNET 1998:
33). This unit is characterized by stable villages with quite
sophisticated clay architecture, advanced farming and stockbreeding, painted pottery production, and art (MASSoN
1971; 1992; chARLES, hARRIS, LIMBRy 1992: 98, 99).
Nevertheless, sites of this culture also keep the 200 m above
msl contour line (MASSoN, SARIANIDI 1972: 54–55, see
also: figs. 3, 4).
The early, Dariasai phase of the Kelteminarian at
present day is represented only by three assemblages from
Učaŝi 131: house I, II, and III (VINoGRADoV 1981: 60–
69, also VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV, SULERžIcKI 1977),
Ayakagytma ‘The Site’, lower settlement layer (SZyMcZAK,
KhUDZhANAZARoV 2006: 47–55), and probably by some
surface collections from the Lavlâkan Lakes, e. g., points
marked as L-13 or L-326 (VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975:
212). In any of these collections we do not find even traces
of white raw material using, which would suggest that during the earliest stages of the Neolithic local human groups
did not know anything about this material (fig. 3). Less
probable is a possibility that the neighbours of Učaŝi,
Ayakagytma and the Lavlâkan Lakes groups used chalcedonite/opal by that time, because it would have surely left its
traces, at least as single imports.
The middle, Tuskan phase of the local Neolithic is
represented by the collections from: the Tuskan Lakes,
Significant finds
rhomboid insert
Kelteminarian point
Kelteminarian point
rectangle
Čorbakti, Ečkiliksai, Ayakagytma, Učaŝi, the Lavlâkan
Lakes, Bešbulak, Northern Aral, Southern Ustiurt, Uzboi,
and Džebel (fig. 4).
Based on surface materials we gained during our
2004 survey, the white raw material in the Tuskan collections from the area of the Tuskan Lakes always prevails.
It is presented in Table 1 (SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV,
BRUNET 2005).
Also the archaeologists formerly excavating in
this area underline that on such Middle Neolithic sites
as Darbazakyr 1 and 2 “dominated the best quality flint
of milky white and yellowish-white colours” (GULâMoV,
ISLAMoV, ASKARoV 1966: 29–30).
According to N.U. holmatov (2004: 20), particular concentrations from the Čorbakti cluster of sites have
a similar character. he mentions a collection of Čorbakti
15A, where pieces of chalcedonite/opal are “in absolute
majority”. The same goes to the other surface series of finds,
among which the rhomboid inserts appear.
Quite opposite is the situation with the Ečkiliksai
cluster, which we visited in 1995. Among quite numerous
artefacts from the area we found only a single white specimen, while in the most numerous (87 pieces, with one
rectangle) collection from the hodžagumbaz concentration
(SZyMcZAK, GRETchKINA 1996: 107, 108; SZyMcZAK,
KhUDZhANAZARoV 2006: 63, 64, pls. cII, cIII) we did
not notice any objects of that kind.
In an upper settlement layer of Ayakagytma ‘The
Site,’ which yielded an inventory in good part representing
the middle (Tuskan) phase of the Kelteminarian, among
a little more than 33 thousand lithic artefacts, we differentiated only 15 pieces produced of white raw material.
Beside one flake, the remaining 14, with a Kelteminarian
point and a rhomboid insert, were retouched tools of various forms (SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV 2006: 193–
195; SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV, MIchNIAK 2006: 591).
It would indicate that they were imported to Ayakagytma,
and most likely they mark some contacts between the local
inhabitants and their neighbours, who had a direct access
to the white material, and used it much more often.
Also in the area of Učaŝi white surface artefacts
which could be attributed to the Tuskan phase are rather
36
ThE MILKy WhITE chALcEDoNITE/oPAL DISTRIBUTIoN IN ThE NEoLIThIc KELTEMINAR cULTURE oF ThE KyZyL-KUMS
The concentrations of the late, Akčadaria settlements are present in the following clusters of sites: the
Tuskan Lakes, the Lavlâkan Lakes, Bešbulak, Minabulak,
Bukantau, Southern Ustiurt, Uzboi, Akčadaria, the
Amudaria’s left bank, and the single site of Džebel (fig. 5).
In his description of the Late Neolithic (Eneolithic)
materials with flatly retouched points and arrowheads from
the Tuskan Lakes cluster, U.I. Islamov (GULâMoV, ISLAMoV,
ASKARoV 1966: 69) does not mention the presence of the
white raw material. During our 2004 survey we did not find
any clearly Late Neolithic flint artefacts, but with some
collections where chalcedonite/opal was present (but not
dominating) goes pottery which could be attributed to the
Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Thus, we suppose that
by that time the local inhabitants could be still familiar
with that rock, but its importance was limited (SZyMcZAK,
KhUDZhANAZARoV, BRUNET 2005).
The youngest concentrations from the Lavlâkan
Lakes cluster do not give a clear picture. There are collections with flatly retouched implements, like L-62/II and
L-62/III, where we note only single white artefacts
(VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975: 93, 101, 102), while in the
others, like L-106, L-219, or L-301 (with bifacial points, or
microperforators) the white finds prevail, or at least are
distinctly represented (VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975: 56,
60, 146, 159, 183, 185).
In generally Late Neolithic/Eneolithic collections
from Bešbulak 1, 14 and 15 (bifacial implements, and a number of tiny perforators) the chalcedonite/opal artefacts are,
according to A.V. Vinogradov (1981: 100–101), in overwhelming majority.
Quite opposite seems to be the situation with
Minabulak. This cluster provided exclusively Late Neolithic
collections, but no white items were noted. E.g., in published by us surface materials from Minabulak Site 2 (64 artefacts) and 4 (556 artefacts) with fine and very fine perforators, chalcedonite/opal pieces were completely absent
(SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV 2006: 64–65).
In the exclusively Late Neolithic collections from
Bukantau, with thick, perfectly fired pottery, again white
items clearly prevail. Among the materials found by us
in the area during a systematic survey in August 2002
(SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV 2003: 6–8; 2006: 66–
68) the indices of white artefacts are as shown in Table 2:
rare. The first impression could be different, if we said that
in our 64 surface pieces, with one Kelteminarian point, the
collection from Učaŝi (survey in 2003), we have as many as
11 items made of white material. The fact is, however, that
such pieces were more interesting for us than the artefacts
of normal flint, so we picked them up much more often,
and thus we cannot treat this collection as a random sample
(SZyMcZAK, KhUDZhANAZARoV 2006: 64).
Interesting is the situation with Tuskan phase concentrations on the Lavlyakan Lakes. In such collections as:
L-26I-IV (Kelteminarian points), L-102 (Kelteminarian
points), L-120 (Kelteminarian point), or L-165, a good majority (well over 50%) of artefacts are made of chalcedonite/opal
(VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975: 43, 54, 60, 63, 65, 104).
There are even cases when the entire lithic collection is white:
L-101 (30 pieces), or L-119 (100 pieces) (VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975: 52, 61). But also such collections are present,
like L-24, or L-107, where chalcedonite/opal is represented
by a few pieces only, similarly as in Ayakagytma ‘The Site,’
the upper layer (VINoGRADoV, MAMEDoV 1975: 29, 57).
From the badly mixed up Middle and Late Neolithic
collections from Bešbulak 1, 14 and 15, some Tuskan phase
elements could be differentiated only typologically (ČALAâ
1972). A.V. Vinogradov (1981: 100–101) mentions that
they could be produced of flint, as well as of chalcedonite/
opal, though in the same sentence he also admits that in all
collections white material always clearly prevails. Thus, we
can assume that by that time in Bešbulak white raw material was in common use.
If we look at a map now, we notice that we have
three different zones, where the use of chalcedonite/opal
took place: the southern (the Tuskan Lakes, Čorbakti), where
knappers based on white material; the middle (Ečkiliksai,
Ayakagytma, Učaŝi, in some part the Lavlâkan Lakes), where
objects of white material appear only occasionally; and the
northern one (the majority of the Lavlâkan Lakes, Bešbulak),
where again white material plays a major role (fig. 4). It is
quite possible then, that we have to do here with three larger
human groups, who surely knew about one another (imports),
had common lithic toolmaking tradition, but economically were organized in quite different ways. Knowing nothing
about the outcrops of chalcedonite/opal, we cannot say too
much about the way it was so widely distributed (the distance
between the Tuskan Lakes and Bešbulak exceeds 300 km),
but coastal navigation is the first what comes to mind.
Table 2. The appearance of white raw material in the Late Neolithic surface collections gained during a systematic survey
in August 2002 from the area of the Bukantau Mountains (K. Szymczak).
Tabela 2. Występowanie białego surowca w późnoneolitycznych kolekcjach powierzchniowych pozyskanych w górach
Bukantau podczas systematycznych badań w sierpniu 2002 r.
Site
Bokhale
Urazli I
Urazli II
Dzharylkap II
No. of chalcedonite/opal finds
178
21
35
13
Total No. of finds
182
28
35
13
37
Significant finds
bifacial point
bifacial point
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
The very rich Late Neolithic Akčadaria cluster with
numerous bifacial pieces yielded chiefly the concentrations
where chalcedonite/opal is well represented, but does not
seem to play a leading role. According to A.V. Vinogradov
(1968: 42), in a lower layer of the site of Džanbas 4, white
artefacts are more rare than brown flint ones. The same goes
to the collections from Džanbas 5, Džanbas 12 (ca 10% of
white finds), and Kavat 7 (VINoGRADoV 1968: 54, 56, 88).
In many surface collections white material is not present at
all. Such a general situation was confirmed during a systematic survey in that region (2005–2009), but there are single
collections where white finds prevail (annual reports edited by F. Brunet, M. Khudzhanazarov and K. Szymczak).
The cluster on the left bank of the Amudaria is
quite similar to the above one. chalcedonite/opal is present,
but does not prevail. E.g., in the surface collection from
Karrikyzyl 1, among a total number of 570 lithics we find
240 white ones – less than a half (VINoGRADoV 1981: 105).
Taking into account all what was said about the
white raw material during the last phase of the local Neolithic, we could assume that the system of its long distance
distribution somehow changed. Nevertheless, chalcedonite/
opal still played an important role in lithic tools production (fig. 5).
At the end we could try to summarize in a few sentences the Neolithic history of the Kyzyl-kums as seen from
a perspective of chalcedonite/opal distribution.
During the early phase (ca 6200–5400 Bc) white
raw material seems to have been unknown to the Kyzylkums inhabitants, who were generally living by a coast of
a vast water reservoir, today called the Io Sea. only in the
second phase (ca 4000–3000 Bc) the outcrops of the
material under discussion were discovered, probably somewhere in the northern part of the central Kyzyl-kums.
A purposefully created system of distribution of this rock
allowed chalcedonite/opal to become the most important,
basic lithic raw material during that period for the groups
living in the northern (Bešbulak, the Lavlâkan Lakes), as
well as in the southern (the Tuskan Lakes, Čorbakti) parts
of the Kyzyl-kums. only peoples from the middle part
(Ečkiliksai, Ayakagytma, Učaŝi, in small part the Lavlâkan
Lakes) did not have a direct access to this material, so they
rather exchanged the ready products in small quantities
than knapped it all by themselves. It would suggest that
this group, or groups, could create a separate unit, economically different from those from the North and the South,
though united by a common toolmaking tradition. During
the Late Neolithic phase (ca 3000–2100 Bc), when the
Io Sea rapidly reduced its size to disappear completely, the
clusters of sites representing a group, or groups inhabiting
the middle part of the Kyzyl-kums, which did not have
a direct access to the white raw material, vanished. In other
clusters of sites, also in those new ones, located on the
former sea bottom (Akčadaria, the Amudaria’s left bank)
chalcedonite/opal still played an important, although not
always the most important role. only in Bukantau, in the
area being probably the closest to the outcrops, the white
material still prevails in lithic collections. It seems as if a system of white material distribution had somehow changed,
but was still quite effective. In the Bronze Age chalcedonite/
opal most probably lost its importance; on the rare sites
with numerous lithics from that period (e.g., the Kukayaz
cluster of sites on the Uzbek-Kazah border in the northern
Kyzyl-kums – examination in 2009) we find only single
white artefacts. Generally, after vanishing of the Io Sea at
the turn of the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age,
some 2100 Bc, the Neolithic ways of life (stock breeding
Kelteminarian, as well as farming Džejtunian) fell down,
and people moved from the now arid steppe-desert area to
the surrounding oases to build a new civilization.
Dr hab. prof. UW Karol Szymczak
Institute of Archaeology
University of Warsaw
[email protected]
Dr. Mukhiddin Khudzhanazarov
Institute of Archaeology
Uzbek Academy of Sciences
Akad. Abdullaeva 3
70 3051 Samarkand, Uzbekistan
[email protected]
38
ThE MILKy WhITE chALcEDoNITE/oPAL DISTRIBUTIoN IN ThE NEoLIThIc KELTEMINAR cULTURE oF ThE KyZyL-KUMS
Literature
BRUNET, F.
1998
la neolithisation en asie centrale: un etat de la question, “Paleorient” 24/2, 27–48.
ČALAâ, L.A.
1972
stoânka Bešbulak 15 (Vnutrennie Kyzylkumi), “Uspehi Sredneazâckoj Arheologii” 2, 45–47.
chARLES, M., hARRIS, D., LIMBRy, S.
1992
obrazci, vzâtie na radiouglerodnij analiz metodom uskoritelnoj masspektroskopii, (in:) V.M. MASSoN 1992
(ed.), 98–99.
GULâMoV, â.G., ISLAMoV, U.I., ASKARoV, A.
1966
Pervobytnaâ kultura i vozniknovenne orošaemogo zemledelâ v nizovâh Zarafšana, Taškent.
hoLMAToV, N.U.
2004
K hronologii kelteminarskih materialov starorečij Zarafšana, (in:) T.Sh. Shirinov (ed.), o’zbekiston moddiy
madaniyati tarixi 34, Samarkand, 17–25.
KhUDZhANAZARoV, M., SZyMcZAK, K.
2006
the stone age of the turanian lowland. a Problem of settlement Discontinuity, (in:) L. Domańska, y. Lee
(eds.), 11th international symposium ‘suyanggae and her neighbours’, Łódź 2006, łódź, 123–137.
MASSoN, V.M.
1971
Poselenie Džejtun (problema stanovleniâ proizvodiâŝej ekonomiki), Materiali i Issledovaniâ po Arheologii SSSR
180, Leningrad.
1992 (ed.) Novye issledovaniâ na poselenii Džejtun, Materiali KGAKE 4, Ašgabat.
MASSoN, V.M., SARIANIDI, V.I.
1972
Central asia, turkmenia before the achaemenids, London.
MIchNIAK, R.
1998
an expert’s opinion on a spotless white, imported raw material, (in:), K. Szymczak, S. Mustafakulov (eds.),
Polish-uzbek archaeological expedition, season 1997, General report, excavation in ayakagytma ‘the site’,
se Kyzyl-kums, uzbekistan, Warsaw-Samarkand, 20–25 (bound manuscript in the Library of the Institute of
Archaeology, the University of Warsaw).
SZyMcZAK, K., GRETchKINA, T.
1996
the Perspectives of the studies on the early Neolithic of the Kyzyl-kum Desert. ayakagytma ‘the site’ and other
New Collections, (in:) S.K. Kozłowski, h.G.K. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped stone industries of the fertile
Crescent, and their Contemporaries in adjacent regions, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence
and Environment 3, Berlin, 105–125.
SZyMcZAK, K., KhUDZhANAZARoV, M.
2003 (eds.) Polish-uzbek archaeological Project, season 2002, General report, survey in Bukantau Mountains, NW Central
Kyzyl-kums; excavation in ayakagytma ‘the site’ and ayakagytma ‘the Mine’, se Kyzyl-kums, uzbekistan, Warsaw-Samarkand (bound manuscript in the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, the University of Warsaw).
2006
archaeological materials, (in:) T. Shirinov, K. Szymczak (eds.), exploring the Neolithic of the Kyzyl-kums;
ayakagytma ‘the site’ and other collections, światowit Supplement Series P: Prehistory and Middle Ages XI,
central Asia – Prehistoric Studies II, Warsaw, 37–180.
SZyMcZAK, K., KhUDZhANAZARoV, M., BRUNET, F.
2005
some neolithic and early bronze age finds from Makhandaria region, (in:) A.A. Anarbaev (ed.), uzbekiston
tarihi moddij madanijat vaėzma manbalarda, Toshkent, 26–35.
39
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
SZyMcZAK, K., KhUDZhANZARoV, M., MIchNIAK, R.
2006
the Neolithic of the Kyzyl-kums, uzbekistan. flint raw material from the site of ayakagytma, (in:) G. Koerlin,
G. Weisgerber (eds.), stone age – Mining age, Montanhistorische Zeitschrift. Der Anschnitt: Zeitschrift für
Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau. Beiheft 19, Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum
148, Bochum, 587–591.
VINoGRADoV, A.V.
1968
1981
Neolitičeskie pamâtniki Horezma, Materialy horezmskoj Ekspedicii 8, Moskva.
Drevnie ohotniki i rybolovy sredneazâckogo meždurečâ, Trudy horezmskoj Arheologo-Etnografičeskoj Ekspedicii 13, Moskva.
VINoGRADoV, A.V., MAMEDoV, E.D.
1975
Pervobytnij lavlakan, Moskva.
VINoGRADoV, A.V., MAMEDoV, E.D., SULERžIcKIJ, L.D.
1977
Pervye radiouglerodnye daty dla neolita Kyzylkumov, “Soveckaâ Arheologiâ” 4, 267–269.
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
DYSTRYBUCJA MLECZNOBIAŁEGO CHALCEDONITU/OPALU W NEOLITYCZNEJ KULTURZE KELTEMINARSKIEJ
KYZYŁ-KUMÓW, UZBEKISTAN
W
neolitycznej kulturze kelteminarskiej Kyzył-kumów istotną rolę odgrywał mlecznobiały surowiec kamienny, zidentyfikowany jako chalcedonit przechodzący
w opal. Autorzy analizują intensywność jego użytkowania
w poszczególnych horyzontach chronologicznych i poszczególnych zagęszczeniach osadniczych. Dochodzą do
wniosku, że:
1) podczas fazy najstarszej osadnictwa kelteminarskiego
(ok. 6200–5400 Bc) społeczności ludzkie nie używały
analizowanego surowca;
2) podczas kolejnej fazy (ok. 4000–3000 Bc) biały surowiec miał podstawowe znaczenie w strefach północnej i południowej Kuzuł-kumów, podczas gdy w strefie środkowej
pojawiają się tylko pojedyncze, importowane wyroby z niego
wykonane, co sugerowałoby istnienie w ramach kelteminarienu odrębnych grup;
3) podczas fazy najmłodszej (ok. 3000–2100 Bc) społeczności strefy środkowej Kyzył-kumów, które nigdy nie miały
bezpośredniego dostępu do złóż białego surowca, zanikają,
podczas gdy w innych zagęszczeniach osadniczych chalcedonit/opal nadal utrzymuje pewne znaczenie, lecz nie jest
już surowcem dominującym, tak jakby system jego dalekosiężnej dystrybucji znacznie się zmienił;
4) od początku epoki brązu chalcedonit/opal był użytkowany jedynie okazjonalnie.
40
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
PLANSZA 13
13
Fig. 1. Examples of artefacts produced of milky white chalcedonite/opal. Učaŝi and Ayakagytma surface finds
(Photo K. Szymczak).
Ryc. 1. Przykłady zabytków wykonanych z mlecznobiałego chalcedonitu/opalu. Znaleziska powierzchniowe ze
stanowisk Učaŝi i Ayakagytma.
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
PLANSZA 14
Fig. 2. SEM pictures of chalcedonite/opal showing monomineral
siliceous rock with excellently uniform micrograining. Magnification:
A – 70×, B – 1000×, c – 4500×
(after MIchNIAK 1998).
Ryc. 2. obrazy SEM świeżych powierzchni chalcedonitu/opalu ukazujące monomineralną skałę krzemionkową z idealnie jednorodnym,
drobnym uziarnieniem. Powiększenia: A –70×, B – 1000×, c – 4500×.
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
PLANSZA 15
Fig. 3. Kelteminar settlement distribution during its oldest (Dariasai) phase. Bold line shows the run of the 200 m above msl
contourline – the maximum range of the Io Sea. Empty dots mark the main sites of the Džejtunian culture along the Kopet-dag
Mountain chain. 1 – the Lavlâkan Lakes; 2 – Ayakagytma; 3 – Učaŝi (eastern Dariasai) (K. Szymczak and M. Przeździecki).
Ryc. 3. Rozprzestrzenienie osadnictwa w starszej (dairasaiskiej) fazie kultury kelteminarskiej. Pogrubiona linia pokazuje przebieg poziomicy 200 m n. p. m. – maksymalny zasięg morza Io. Puste kropki oznaczają położenie ważniejszych stanowisk kultury džejtuńskiej.
Fig. 4. Kelteminar settlement distribution during its middle (Tuskan) phase. The settlement clusters where white chalcedonite/
opal appears only occasionally are outlined. Bold line sthe run of the 200 m above msl contourline – the maximum range of the
Io Sea. Empty dots mark the main sites of the Džejtunian culture along the Kopet-dag Mountain chain. 1 – the Lavlâkan Lakes;
2 – Ayakagytma; 3 – Učaŝi (eastern Dariasai); 4 – the Tuskan Lakes (Mahandaria); 5 – Čorbakti; 6 – Ečkiliksai;
7 – Bešbulak; 10 – Northern Aral; 11 – Southern Ustiurt; 12 – Uzboi; 13 – Džebel (K. Szymczak and M. Przeździecki).
Ryc. 4. Rozprzestrzenienie osadnictwa w środkowej (tuskańskiej) fazie kultury kelteminarskiej. Skupienia osadnicze, w których biały chalcedonit/opal występuje jedynie okazjonalnie są otoczone linią. Pogrubiona linia pokazuje przebieg poziomicy
200 m n. p. m. – maksymalny zasięg morza Io. Puste kropki oznaczają położenie ważniejszych stanowisk kultury džejtuńskiej.
KARoL SZyMcZAK, MUKhIDDIN KhUDZhANAZARoV
PLANSZA 16
Fig. 5. Kelteminar settlement distribution during its latest (Akčadaria) phase; note rapid diminishing of the Io Sea.
1 – the Lavlâkan Lakes; 7– Bešbulak; 8 – Minabulak; 9– Bukantau; 11 – Southern Ustiurt; 12 – Uzboi; 13 – Džebel;
14 – Akčadaria; 15 – the Amudaria’s left bank (K. Szymczak and M. Przeździecki).
Ryc. 5. Rozprzestrzenienie osadnictwa w późnej (akčadaryjskiej) fazie kultury kelteminarskiej; zwraca uwagę szybki zanik
morza Io. 1 – Jeziora Lavlâkan; 7 – Bešbulak; 8 – Minabulak; 9 – Bukantau; 11 – Południowy Ustiurt; 12 – Uzboi;
13 – Džebel; 14 – Akčadaria; 15 – lewy brzeg Amudarii.